Tyre Mark Bradbury v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
71A05-1606-CR-1280
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 15, 2017Background
- On April 9–10, 2014, 15-year-old Tyre Bradbury and companions went to a park after a prior fight; Bradbury brought a handgun and a shotgun and gave the handgun to Robert Griffin. Griffin and another fired at L.B.; one of Griffin’s bullets struck and killed two‑year‑old J.S.
- Police arrested Bradbury; he was interrogated at a station with his mother present across three sessions the same day; he initially lied but later admitted involvement and affiliation with a gang called “Evil Side.”
- The State charged Bradbury with murder as an accessory (aiding/inducing) and sought a criminal‑organization (gang) sentencing enhancement; juvenile court waived jurisdiction and case proceeded in adult court.
- A jury convicted Bradbury of murder as an accomplice and found him subject to the criminal organizations enhancement; trial court imposed the 45‑year statutory minimum for murder and—per the enhancement—doubled it, yielding a 90‑year aggregate sentence.
- On appeal Bradbury challenged (1) admissibility of his recorded interrogation (coercion), (2) jury instructions, (3) sufficiency of evidence for murder and for the gang enhancement, (4) failure to impose juvenile disposition, and (5) proportionality/constitutionality of his sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of interrogation recording (voluntariness) | State: statement was voluntary; police complied with Miranda, multiple advisals, breaks, and mother present | Bradbury: officer’s remark about likely sexual assault in prison and lengthy interrogation rendered confession coerced | Court: No abuse of discretion; remark was isolated, interrogation spanned hours with breaks and repeated Miranda advisals, and substantial evidence supported voluntariness |
| Jury instruction on murder elements | State: instruction legally sufficient | Bradbury: instruction should have required proof he knew the handgun would be used to shoot | Held: Issue waived for appeal because defense failed to object at trial; also court cited precedent upholding instruction framing |
| Sufficiency of evidence for murder (accomplice liability) | State: evidence showed Bradbury knowingly aided/induced Griffin (gave handgun, coordinated, post‑shooting statements) supporting transferred intent | Bradbury: he opposed the shooting and did not intend death of J.S.; presence alone insufficient | Held: Conviction affirmed—circumstantial evidence (weapons transfer, actions, statements, concealment) permitted finding he knowingly aided Griffin; transferred intent applies |
| Sufficiency of evidence for gang enhancement | State: testimony, expert/PD officers, photos, gang gesture, and Bradbury’s admissions supported criminal organization membership and affiliation | Bradbury: claimed not a gang member nor acting at gang direction | Held: Enhancement affirmed—evidence supported membership and that felony was committed in affiliation with the gang |
| Juvenile‑code sentencing alternative | State: trial court discretion to impose juvenile disposition | Bradbury: court should have imposed juvenile sentencing under §31‑30‑4‑2 | Held: Denial of juvenile sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion; court’s reasons (severity, juvenile record, failed rehabilitations) were sufficient—no abuse of discretion |
| Proportionality of 90‑year sentence (Eighth/Art I §16) | State: sentence within statutory limits and justified by facts/aggravators | Bradbury: 90 years disproportionate given his non‑shooter role and companions’ varied sentences | Held: Majority—murder 45 years affirmed but gang enhancement reduced to 15 years (remand for total 60 years) as the mandatory doubling was disproportionate; concurrence would have affirmed 90 years |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (threats by fellow inmate can render confession involuntary in context of coercion in prison)
- Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014) (discusses accomplice liability standards under federal statute; distinguished here)
- Pruitt v. State, 834 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. 2005) (totality‑of‑circumstances test for voluntariness of statements)
- Wright v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1098 (Ind. 1997) (presence at scene insufficient; conduct before/during/after must show complicity)
- Armstrong v. State, 22 N.E.3d 629 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for reviewing criminal‑organization enhancement evidence)
- Clark v. State, 561 N.E.2d 759 (Ind. 1990) (article I, §16 proportionality review can invalidate legislatively authorized enhancements in extreme cases)